On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com> wrote:
<snip> > Finally, why isn't this just a module on PyPI? It doesn't seem like there's > any particular benefit to making this a stdlib module and going through the > whole PEP process - except maybe to prompt feedback like this :). > > We've already had this discussion before. Could you explain why this module > should *not* be in the stdlib e.g. does it have significantly less utility > than other modules in stdlib? Is it significantly higher risk? etc? Inclusion in the stdlib is the exception, not the rule, and every exception should be issued for a good reason. I'd like to know what that reason is in this case, if only to get a clearer understanding of why the PEP was accepted. > Issues like the ones I'm bringing up could be fixed pretty straightforwardly > if it were just a matter of filing a bug on a small package, but fixing a > stdlib module is a major undertaking. > > True but I don't think that is a convincing argument. A subset of the > functionality provided by this module is already available in Java and C++ > and (at least in Java) it is used extensively and without too much trouble. > If there are implementation bugs then we can fix them just like we would > with any other module. Guido made exactly the opposite argument during his keynote at PyCon. It seemed fairly reasonable at the time- why do you think it doesn't apply here? Geremy Condra _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
